Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T05BU02005
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/30/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit stamped approved landscape and NPP plans included with Tentative Plat / Development Plan to continue review. |
| 10/17/2005 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 10/17/2005 Gas City Houghton/Valencia Grading Plan Comments: 1- Include Houghton/ Valencia project CDRC Case number and the Grading Plan number on the cover sheet. 2- Add a general grading comment that requires the subject project to comply with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (Excavation and Grading). 3- Add a note that requires the contractor to depress the landscape areas a maximum of 6" for water harvesting. 4- The approved Drainage Report and Tentative Plat do not show the proposed depressed curb and splash pad described in Keynote 6 and depicted in details 4/C4 and 5/C4. The Drainage Report shows a different discharge point. Additionally, the splash pad encroaches on the 30' natural buffer area and causes a disturbance during and after construction. Address this issue and revise as necessary. 5- Several pavement slopes are different from what was shown on the Tentative Plat. Explain the reason for the change and clarify how this change might affect the approved site drainage. 6- The proposed drainage exhibit in the Drainage Report shows that the station runoff does not exit the site through the Houghton Road entrance. According to cross-section detail 1/C5 on the Grading Plan, the entrance slopes down to Houghton Road, which will create a discharge point into Houghton. Address this change and revise as necessary. 7- Show the elevations at all proposed high points and elevation breaks. 8- Please be advised the gas tanks access points (filling points) need to be elevated above grade in order to prevent ponding water over the access points. 9- The detention basin maintenance access point has changed from what was shown on the Tentative Plat. Explain the need for this modification. Please be advised that the final plat should show cross access and cross drainage easements to allow access for detention/retention maintenance. 10- The Grading Plan does not show the storm drains that were part of the approved site drainage scheme as shown in the Drainage Report. Revise. 11- Ensure that proposed cuts and fills will be setback a minimum of 2' from the property line. Revise all the affected cross section details. 12- The Grading Plan does not show the low flow pipes at the Houghton Road and Valencia Road entrances. Revise as needed. 13- Work in the public right of way requires an excavation permit and/or may require a private improvement agreement. Check with City of Tucson Department of Transportation Permits and Codes for additional information. 14- Show proposed roof drainage. Additionally, according to D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk or walkway (including the walkways around the proposed buildings). Demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include any design calculations in the drainage report. 15- Clarify if the Car Wash will generate surface runoff and explain how it will be collected. Additionally, label the double lines shown at the entrance and exit of the Car Wash area and connect to pads described in Keynote 4. 16- The project requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Submit A SWPPP with the next submittal. 17- Resubmit the redlined plan with future Grading Plan submittals. 18- Provide a detailed response letter with the next submittal that explains how the comments were addressed and references the exact locations/sheets where the revisions were made. |
| 10/20/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Grading notes for permits plus. With DEVELOPMENT PLAN 10/20/05 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Principal Planner Comments: 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved development plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped development, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved site/development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. 4. A site card with DSD approvals by Fire, Zoning, Handi-cap, Engineering, and Landscape/NPPO including the approved development plan stamped for site plan approval and signatures is required before the grading plan can be approved by Zoning. Two copies of the approved development plan, landscape and NPPO plans are to be submitted with the grading plans packet for processing and approval as a site plan. No fees are involved in re-stamping the development/tentative plat plans as an approved site plan. The development plan may be walked through for stamps and site card sign off. Submit the following: two copies of the stamped development plan, landscape and NPPO plans must be included with the grading plans packet processed together for site approval. 5. The following items have been noticed as not in compliance during the zoning review. a. We (Zoning) have been tasked with insuring that truncated domes are provided at all access ramps that transitition onto the a travel lane or vehicular areas. Two specific ramps have been recognized as not in compliance with the requirement. Please review the the plan and insure that the truncated domes are placed in the correct locations. Check all access ramps for truncated domes with regards to location and surface area requirements. b. Two additional access ramps have been provided along the sidewalk which is in front of building (west side) and between the wheel stops in front of the parking spaces. Please clarify if access aisles for handicapped parking spaces or what other purpose they will serve. c. Provide a detail for the center access ramp. It appears that the access ramp location or area may not be provided with sufficient area between the back of the ramp and the building wall for the required landing. It may be neccessary to revise the access ramp to comply. d. Per the approved TP/DP the loading zone was placed towrds the south property line of the of this lot. Per teh grading plan the loading zone has been relocated adjacent to the building. Please consult with John Clark if the new location of the loading zone will affect the maneuverability for the solid waste vehicle to pick up the container given its location and the angle required for the vehicle to safely pickup the container. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/24/2005 | JMORALE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/24/2005 | JMORALE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |